GOP more corrupt than DNC with choosing of nominee

So, here we are. Telling each other to vote. Stirring up the nation. The DNC looks wrapped up and it is blamed mostly on bought and paid for super-delegates. The GOP at least looked like it was more fair. There is a fantastic race that it seems, at this time, only one candidate has a chance of getting enough delegates but, even if he does, did you know it does not matter? Just like the electoral college, you and me as the voter mean nothing and the fix is still in to hand the election to someone establishment, like Hillary Clinton.

www.cnbc.com...

olitical parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories.

"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

Haugland is one of 112 Republican delegates who are not required to cast their support for any one candidate because their states and territories don't hold primaries or caucuses.
Even with Trump's huge projected delegate haul in four state primaries Tuesday, the odds are increasing the billionaire businessman may not ultimately get the 1,237 delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination before the convention.

So, not only is it only their decision, no matter the delegate count, they are also trying to introduce another rule...

Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he's proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer's convention.

Fellow ATSNN'ers we HAVE to stop this political machine.

Again, this is foreshadowing the convention and the need for riot gear.

a reply to: matafuchs

Wait. You actually believed that the GOP played fair? I saw this writing on the wall months ago when it became clear that Trump was becoming unstoppable.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, not really fair. I am just finding it interesting that these guys are still holding out. I could understand if people still thought Trump was a fad but we are in March, he just took 5 of 6 states and the rest of the primaries are mainly closed. I guess I knew they were corrupt just not this stupid.

The GOP is giving up already to try again in 2020. I am hoping someone has some balls at the convention and calls out the entire good ol boy network..I mean, other than Trump.

a reply to: matafuchs

Well I know this is hard to accept, but there ARE Republicans who can't stomach Trump as their nominee. Quite a few of them in fact. This has been apparent for quite some time.

What's funny is how Trump has spent the last year tearing the Republican party apart with his angry divisiveness and now that he looks like he is going to win the nomination he wants all of the GOP to get along with him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is always a split in the parties. This is understandable. There were those that hated Obama..hardcore Clinton supporters. But they decided to get behind a candidate that would have the best chance of winning...and they did. This is what happens. We all want someone else. I like Carson, and always been a Huckabee fan as well as Paul. They did not have the power to pull a national election.

Also, I feel that Trump has shown everyone the truth behind the GOP's division internally and not so much tearing it apart. He has finished what the tea party started. To root out the ones who are not the true GOP. They having been coming in all directions and at this point if his own party cannot kill his nomination I am feeling that the DNC does not have a chance either...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

People keep saying that Trump is tearing the party apart and being divisive.
How exactly?
Every time the subject comes up with him, I hear him supporting the Republican party.

If anything, those that are riling things up and organizing demonstrations to stop Trump are the ones being divisive.
They are the ones tearing the party apart.

Trump is getting votes. For the first time in ages, more Republicans are interested and voting, and the party might have a shot at getting a party member into the white house.

The votes show the people want Trump. What do they really think will happen if the convention goes against the will of the people? Will that make the party stronger? No - people will leave in droves and give up on the RNC.

ETA: And if the convention overrides the will of the people, many might even give up and not even vote in the general election. Then who will get the white house (again).

a reply to: matafuchs

The difference between Hillary supporters getting behind Obama is that Obama wasn't saying brash and intolerable things to literally everyone that says something he disagrees with, including his own party. Trump says and does things that make him unsupportable, even among his own party. It's just a fact of reality. This is what a TRUE divisive candidate looks like.

PS: You can kick out these supposed RINOS from the GOP all you want (even though Trump is technically a RINO as well, but I'll let that bit of contradiction slide), but you'll just end up shrinking your voting base and you won't get him elected. Which is what is happening with the GOP.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Krazysh0t

People keep saying that Trump is tearing the party apart and being divisive.
How exactly?

Lol. Is this a real question? If you don't know how Trump is being divisive then you don't want to know.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: matafuchs

The difference between Hillary supporters getting behind Obama is that Obama wasn't saying brash and intolerable things to literally everyone that says something he disagrees with, including his own party. Trump says and does things that make him unsupportable, even among his own party. It's just a fact of reality. This is what a TRUE divisive candidate looks like.

PS: You can kick out these supposed RINOS from the GOP all you want (even though Trump is technically a RINO as well, but I'll let that bit of contradiction slide), but you'll just end up shrinking your voting base and you won't get him elected. Which is what is happening with the GOP.

I could't get behind Obama and I supported Hillary in 2008 (I don't anymore).

To be honest, of the dozens of Hillary supporters I knew then, none got behind Obama. I can't think of any.

I actually left the party, in May 2008, and have never looked back. I registered 'unaffiliated. I also find/found much of what Obama says to be highly divisive and off-putting. To me, he is as divisive and nasty as Trump.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He says what he thinks. He is being honest.

Would you rather have a pretty boy golden tongued liar politician who is under the control of special interest groups and establishment?

Or would you rather have an honest speaking person who has what it will take to fix the country and get the job done?

How exactly do you choose a doctor? Would you choose one who sweet talks you but does not really give a darn about you and has a degree from the Caribbean and treats rich people better than poor? Or a gruff, outspoken doctor who is not all that socially adept, but who has all kinds of degrees and experience and knows how to make you all better?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well you were one of the few. Especially in 08 when Obama shattered voting participation rates.

I also don't find Obama to be divisive at all. I find him to actually be quite moderate. I feel like there is a carefully crafted smear campaign from the right to make him look divisive at all costs, but I don't find much reality in its claims (In fact I've noticed there are more than a few times that Obama is accused of being divisive and the blame for it actually rests on the right being stubborn and not doing anything). I say all this as someone who didn't vote for Obama in either election.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He says what he thinks. He is being honest.

Call it what you want, but it still results in divisiveness.

Would you rather have a pretty boy golden tongued liar politician who is under the control of special interest groups and establishment?

As opposed to a loudmouth billionaire liar who controls the special interest groups?

Or would you rather have an honest speaking person who has what it will take to fix the country and get the job done?

This thread isn't about Bernie Sanders.

How exactly do you choose a doctor? Would you choose one who sweet talks you but does not really give a darn about you and has a degree from the Caribbean and treats rich people better than poor? Or a gruff, outspoken doctor who is not all that socially adept, but who has all kinds of degrees and experience and knows how to make you all better?

Why should I settle for those two terrible choices when I can go out and find a doctor who has a ton of degrees and experience but also happens to be friendly, outgoing, and maybe even with a sense of humor?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not prone to smear campaigns. I did my own research on Obama and my own analysis.

I am not one of the few either. Here's a short list of blogs/bloggers that were Hillary Supporters, in 2008, and never got on the Obama train. Some support Trump now, some have gone back to Hillary:

Hillary is 44
Hillbuzz
Uppity Woman
Dr. Kate
Daily Puma
Not Your Sweetie


And these are just ones I recalled off the top of my head....


ETA: Two more leapt to mind -- NoQuarter & TexasDarlin.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The difference between Trump and Obama is Trunp says it...Obama waited till he was in office. He was a shoe-in. No one wanted 4 more years of Bush. He was charismatic..unknown..and black. I have said it many times that if Obama was white things would have been different. That is what the DNC used that year. It gained 10% of the Black vote in 08 from the GOP. It was a record shattering election. That is what is happening now again...on the other side and they are not taking advantage.

Trump is using the independents to create his run. He is doing it. The fringe. The blue collar worker. The white collar worker. The college student. The minorities....He is pulling in from ALL of them.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, they are the few, even if they are numerous, because in comparison to the rest of the liberal base they are the few holdouts.

I just didn't vote for Obama because I could see through his "Hope and Change" rhetoric rather easily. Pretty much the same way I can see through today's "Make America Great Again" rhetoric.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, they are the few, even if they are numerous, because in comparison to the rest of the liberal base they are the few holdouts.

I just didn't vote for Obama because I could see through his "Hope and Change" rhetoric rather easily. Pretty much the same way I can see through today's "Make America Great Again" rhetoric.

Yep, I saw through it, too. And I see through Trump's BS.

In fact, I don't trust any republican or democrat because I don't trust either of the parties.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The difference between Trump and Obama is Trunp says it...Obama waited till he was in office. He was a shoe-in. No one wanted 4 more years of Bush. He was charismatic..unknown..and black. I have said it many times that if Obama was white things would have been different. That is what the DNC used that year. It gained 10% of the Black vote in 08 from the GOP. It was a record shattering election. That is what is happening now again...on the other side and they are not taking advantage.

If Obama was white, Hillary would have been elected in 08.

Trump is using the independents to create his run. He is doing it. The fringe. The blue collar worker. The white collar worker. The college student. The minorities....He is pulling in from ALL of them.

So you are saying that Trump is getting rid of the RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) by appealing to non-Republicans to fuel his support?

a reply to: matafuchs

Unfortunately, Hughland was correct when he said parties pick nominees and he's partially correct when he says "The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination."

I say partially correct because it has more to do with a general ignorance of the history of the nomination process and party leadership not wanting people to push for further direct involvement.

Understand that we who are not part of either party's leadership, have at this time, far more say in who is nominated than at any point in American history. This isn't a statement in support of the current process but rather an attempt to explain where we are and how we got here.

1789 & 1792 - the Electoral College did the nominating
1796 to 1828 - members of Congress caucused and nominated their respective candidates
1832 - first national convention where party leadership from around the country picked a candidate. Basically starting at this point, you see district caucuses overseen by party bosses who would then convene at state conventions from which delegates would be sent to the national conventions.

Then came the Progressive Era pushback against party leadership's strict control over nominations.

1899 - first state primary was held in Minnesota.
1901 - Minnesota institutes first mandatory statewide primary system. Florida organizes first presidential election primary
1910 - Oregon established first primary system where delegates to national conventions are required to support primary winner

1912 - There were 14 primaries (including DC's) but most were non-binding and simply used to gauge the voters' preferences/
1920 - There were 20 primaries, the highest number for several decades.
1936 to 1968 - Only 12 states held primaries.

The 1968 election was a watershed moment. Hubert Humphrey captured the Democratic nomination without being on the ballot in a single state primary (he focused all his attention on non primary delegates).

These days we have a patchwork of primaries and caucuses (caucuses of course being a holdover from the bad old days, updated to function more like primaries) and this has become the new norm.

EDIT:

As I said, I am in no way supporting this new norm — quite the opposite — people need to know the history to understand where we are in this progression of voters demanding more control. Unfortunately, where we're at now, most people just want more control over their own parties nomination process because of partisan myopia. We should be working to disband parties altogether or at the very least, pushing for a breakup of the current parties into several smaller parties and uniformity in nomination processes.

a reply to: matafuchs

I really should say that unless the GOP takes 600,000 votes cast for one candidate and literally hands them to another one -- even though their name did not even appear on the ballot -- then the GOP can never be as bad as the DNC in disenfranchising their own party's voters.

Because that is exactly what the DNC did, in 2008.

No way would I ever belong to a party so undemocratic as the democratic party.

a reply to: matafuchs

Trump is using the independents to create his run. He is doing it. The fringe. The blue collar worker. The white collar worker. The college student. The minorities....He is pulling in from ALL of them.

Is he *really* though? I mean that statement is technically correct in that all candidates have some degree of support from across the demographic spectra but how sure are you that he has actual broad appeal with all of those groups and if so, why?